[The Order] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Ice Cream Emperor]

This is totally a tossed-off idea, but it would also be really cool if there was some mechanic by which an Inquisitor could be transformed into the Transgressor. I admit I have no idea how that would work, but the delicious irony/moral crucible aspect would be pretty spectacular if you could pull it off. This would probably have to involve the Inquisitor's Humanity traits, and would presumably mark an end-game of sorts for that particular Inquisitor.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Firstly, you will notice that I changed the screen name to my real name.

Kirk: Hi everybody, my name is Kirk.

Okay, now that's over and done with: On with the show.

My immediate thought was that Inquisitors who successfully win a narration conflict should be able to gain a Humanity trait that relates directly to the conflict result they just described.

Oooooh! <much excitement from the peanut crunching crowd> This is good. I had some vague thoughts towards this direction when I was first coming up with the concept, but tossed it because the way I envisioned it was too complex and inelegant. This is much tighter and cooler. Indeed, this does tie the Inquisitors closer to the Transgressor and makes their humanity more relevant. This, along with the "Interrogation Room Only" structure, I think are essential ideas. Also, this peek into the Inquisitor through the Transgressor is a glimpse at "reality", if you truly wish to call it that. The player's reaction to the Humanity that arises from the conflict would then allow the opportunity to explore the questions that Bill has brought up: "are their consciences clear, and do they really believe that their victims are guilty, or are they hypocrites, holding on to their authority without any real conviction of their own legitimacy?" Whether they choose to still persecute, regardless of their own humanity and personal link to the conflict, will bring these questions into sharp relief.

But on the subject of giving the Transgressor traits, I am not entirely sure what I think. I know I don't want to give the players a reason to band together. I want them at each other's throats and accusing each other of heresy. I want them questioning their own motives (and the reason behind them) and the motives of others. The Transgressor is a catalyst for all of this, the foil through which these activities are created and exposed. And for this reason I think that is why I don't want to give the Transgressor traits or stats, because that would move the focus away from the Inquisitors. I'm willing to explore this idea, but with limits: No guilt stat for the Transgressor. In fact, nothing that gives the Transgressor any objective reality. Everything is subjective in this world, and it is geared towards the Inquisitors. And secondly, no Transgressor is ever found innocent. Ever.

This is totally a tossed-off idea, but it would also be really cool if there was some mechanic by which an Inquisitor could be transformed into the Transgressor. I admit I have no idea how that would work, but the delicious irony/moral crucible aspect would be pretty spectacular if you could pull it off. This would probably have to involve the Inquisitor's Humanity traits, and would presumably mark an end-game of sorts for that particular Inquisitor.

Hmmm. I quite like this actually. Perhaps this could be the way that the "Fallen Inquisitor" endgame is constructed. The interesting thing would be that as the other Inquisitors construct the Fallen Inquisitor's story, guilt and Judge him (or her), it would undoubtedly vary widly from the actual events that caused the Inquisitor to Fall. The question would be whether to keep the original player as the player for the Transgressor, or to perhaps use this for that player to introduce a new Inquisitor character and then have the Fallen Inquisitor dealt with as with a standard Transgressor (but at the end of the Interrogation the Fallen Inquisitor would be allowed to have some sort of "last statement" narration, and then make some alteration to the game world). So the Fall of one Inquisitor draws a new one.

And finally:

3) Ritualized phrases and counterphrases such as:
"But only if" -- means you'll accept the other person's narration, but only if they accept the thing you now say. "But only if" can go back and forth for a while.
"And furthermore" -- means you're going say one more thing and then this negotiation is over, dammit. Requires spending a resource, because you're cutting off narration.
"It was not meant to be" -- means the last thing everyone (including you) said didn't actually happen. The rewind button.
"You ask far too much" -- means you reject the last thing the other person said, the negotiation is over, and who has final say over what happens will come down to a die roll.
And there's at least one more I'm forgetting. You'd want to change the phrases to fit the mood of your game, I imagine: "I respectfully disagree..." or "Need I remind my colleague..." or "let it be judged." Or something. Part of the advantage of ritualized language is that the phrases everyone keeps repeating will rub off, so they'll start talking in the right idiom on their own. Which, in this game, would be creepy.

I do like this idea, but what I am worried about is being too derivative. I don't want to blatantly rip off mechanics (Ahoy matie! A game plundering we will go! Arr!). I do think that this would work very well for when negotiating what the result of the conflict will be, and "Let it be judged" would lead to the following die mechanic:

The Truth Pool is a range of numbers on the die that players "control". All players start off with one number in their Truth Pool that is their base Truth Pool. The range can be increased by using Resources (calling in a Resource of value 2 will increase the range by two). Should the total range of numbers in all of the players' Truth Pools exeed the current die type, upgrade to the next one (4 to 6, 8 whatever fits the total range). All of the players state what outcome they want the conflict to result in. Roll the die. The player who has the rolled number in their Truth Pool gets to narrate the result to the conflict that they have stated. When the conflict has resolved, the Truth Pools revert back to their base number and the die type reverts back to its lowest possible.

What do you think?

And of course I do like the idea of getting players to speak like Inquisitors ("Fear! Fear and surprise!..."). Authority would be the deciding factor for this. Perhaps the players bid Authority points to use various phrases during negotiation. Authority would be replenished at the end of the conflict of course.

So that leaves two things not dealt with so far: Zeal, which I'm not sure actually has a place anymore, and any possible reward for choosing humanity (which I'm not sure I even want...).

Zeal was originally designed to even out the narration power between the Ranks, but I'm not sure how it would work now. Any suggestions? (I'm still mulling it over in my head) Older Inquisitors have more opportunities for Humanity, more power and everything else. Perhaps it is simply a choice that affects game length. A player wants a short game then the choose a young Inquisitor. A longer game, choose an older Inquisitor.

And the reward for humanity... What I was thinking was an end-game "reward"...of sorts. The total value of an Inquisitor's Humanity traits determines the kind of endgame alteration they are able to choose. So the more points you have, the more impact you are able to have on the world. Not necisarily a "better" ending, but you are able to leave more of a mark. And since when did everyone who chose love, freedom and humanity live long and happy lives? Ask a revolutionary.

Kirk

[Kirk Mitchell]

So, yes, everyone confesses:  But why they confess is important, because without it you can't model the conscience of the Inquisitor.  1984 is relevant, but it's the mirror image of this game.  In the novel, we're inside the transgressor's head; in the game, we're inside the interrogator's. In the novel, Winston Smith is transparent to us and O'Brien is a cipher.

Just returning to 1984 for a moment: What I meant when I suggested reference to the book was to look at the way that reality is manipulated. The past is completely malleable. All evidence and traces of past incidents can be erased, and all is left is memory and even this is nullified. Look at how Winston is confronted in the Miniluv cells (two plus two equals five...these people never existed...unpersons). Look at certain sequences in Jacob's Ladder, such as the hell/hospital/interrogation room sequence: "You are dead". This is what the Inquisitors in this game do. It doesn't matter that the book and film are viewed through the eyes of the victim (Transgressor in game terminology) it is still the same theme: the flexibility of "reality". Should this confusion of what "reality" and "truth" is be any different for the one who controls it (Inquisitor) than for the one who's reality is being changed (Transgressor)? When the Inquisitors start mucking with what is "true" by freely mixing "facts" (which are never supplied in the first place, which opens the question "is anything that the Inquisitors create true?") with constructs of their own design and then accepting it as "reality", what then? Do they start believing their own constructions? If they do manage to keep them separate, how do they stay sane when they are forced to destroy or disregard that conception of a concrete reality the moment they do their job? None of these are stated explicitly in the rules, but I want them to be implicit enough for the discerning player to pick up on and use in their games.

Oh, and Ice Cream Emperor, I don't know if you have already been welcomed but allow me to do so:
Welcome to the Forge!

Seriously, this place is the best thing to happen to role-playing since...ever.

Kirk

[Sydney Freedberg]

1) Hurrah for screen names that reflect our real names, even when those names are inherently kinda dorky (e.g. "Sydney Freedberg").

2) I'd not worry about being derivative. It's not as if Leonardo da Vinci thought, "oh no, lots of other people have painted portraits of women smiling before, I'd better depict this Mona Lisa person's inner ear instead." In fact, gleefully copying what you most admire from several sources is likely to produce an original result simply because no one else would choose the exact same set of things to copy and combine.

3) Humanity. This is something to think very hard about, because you get utterly different thematic statements depending on which way you do a humanity mechanic, e.g.
a) Humanity can be used to win conflicts in the game, so it's a source of power
b) Humanity can only be used to determine a character's fate at Endgame, outside of normal conflicts
c) Humanity has no in-game use at all, and any time you build up Humanity, you sacrifice power

[Kirk Mitchell]

Yeah, I'll swallow my pride and go ahead and gleefully plunder everybody else's mechanics. I'm already thinking about how to manipulate the ritualised negotiation rules to my own purposes. This morning I thought about allowing players to invest some of their Authority in others. Perhaps as reward for allies, perhaps as a bribe during negotiation. Sort of like the Trust mechanics, but the trait donated has a different use. Authority is sort of becoming the main unit of currency in the game. Tell me what you think of these uses:

You spend Authority to gain resources.
Authority can be transferred from player to player during negotiation (but not taken).
Spend Authority for some aspects of the ritualised negotiation (to use certain phrases which do certain things etc.)

I don't much like the Mona Lisa anyways...but I do like Polaris. My tip of the hat to Ben.

When it comes to Humanity, I'd go for b) or c). I don't want to have humanity as another way of gaining power. I'm really tempted to just say "too bad" and make Humanity have no reward at all, although I think that the influence of the end-game is kinda cool. With Authority becoming the main currency in the game (supported and supplemented by Resources, which never run out), it seems to be that the issue of Humanity and reward becomes more important to consider. I'd say that those who go the Humanity route should have to depend on Resources. And keep in mind that there are actually two end-game possibilities: Fall and Ascension. The Ascension end-game is determined by Authority. Its easy to lose Authority, it seems (but has harsh repercussions), but more difficult to gain it. I think that there is potential for both end-games to be exciting. One is a scramble to the top over piles of bodies, the other is a desperate fight to survive (which you can't succeed...Oh well).

Do you think Zeal has a place in the game anymore? I don't. Speak up those who advocate Zeal, its life hangs on the end of a thread (upon which is a very sharp guillotine blade).

Kirk

[Sydney Freedberg]

Give the Mona Lisa a chance; my father (a professor of art history) always sighed sadly and said the French really needed to clean off about 500 years of grime so you can really see it, but they're too scared to touch it, seeing how controversial the cleaning of the Sistine Ceiling was.

As for attributes -- frankly, the one that doesn't engage me is Resources. Wouldn't having Resources be a logical consequence of having Authority, not an independent thing? It doesn't strike me as morally distinct: A person who says "I have lots of Authority" and a person who says "I have lots of Resources" haven't obviously made different choices in their lives.

For me, the most powerful triangle is
Authority = I can mobilize lots of resources external to myself, but I probably have become cynical and burnt-out accumulating this power
Zeal = I may have no resources at my command, but me personally, I'm on fire, watch out!
Humanity = I care about people as people, even myself, which makes me tremendously vulnerable (and maybe tremendously powerful in a non-obvious way).

[Josh Roby]

Sydney's got it.  Authority = Resources.  Why create a derived stat?

[Bill_White]

One way of drawing upon the inspiration provided by Polaris's ritualized negotation of narrative "moves" is to connect an Inquisitor's ability to say things about the Transgressor to his relative ranking in terms of each of the stats (Authority, Humanity, Zeal), e.g.:

The player with the highest Authority can [more easily] enter and veto narration about what  is "real":  "It is known to us that [narration]."

The player with the highest Zeal can [more easily] enter and veto narration about what the Order believes, promulgates, and proscribes.  "But it is written thus: [narration]"

The player with the highest Humanity can [more easily] enter and veto narration about the mind of the Transgressor -- his or her conscience, psychology, or mental state.  "Look!  The heretic considers the error of his ways: [narration]"

Successful narration of a particular kind eventually increases the relevant stat, eventually triggering some kind of crisis of conscience or end-game thingy.  And successful judgment of each transgressor should require narration of all three kinds, so that there's motivation to do each.  But if you're the one who's left with, say, the lowest Authority and the highest Humanity, you get the shaft when the Order implodes (or whatever is presumed to happen to end the parade of transgressors in the cell).

And the three stats could be connected in circular fashion, such that gaining Humanity causes you to lose Authority; gaining Authority causes you to lose Zeal, and gaining Zeal causes you to lose Humanity.

Bill

[Kirk Mitchell]

The Mona Lisa is nice, but I suppose I just prefer the movements within Modernism (Dada and Futurism have been favourites). But moving away from that for the moment (as much I might like to continue the discussion).

I guess I saw Resources as being something seperate from Authority in that they might be contacts of some kind, tools, anything that you happen to have at your disposal, inside the Order and out. Inquisitors (frowned on as it may be) will always have contacts beyond the order, even the most fanatical. Even if the contacts are unsavory, you can always turn them in later... I think that Resources should be available to everybody, while Authority is more about rank, authority, commad and respect within the Order. What do you think? I just think that even Inquisitors with high Humanity should be able to pull something out of their sleeves (but without having it directly related to their Humanity trait). An Inquisitor wouldn't say "I have lots of Resouces" because you have to take into account the other traits. "I have lots of resources and Humanity (humanitarian with lots of resources)" is quite a bit different from "I have lots of resources and Zeal (fanatic with lots of resources)".

The player with the highest Authority can [more easily] enter and veto narration about what  is "real":  "It is known to us that [narration]."

The player with the highest Zeal can [more easily] enter and veto narration about what the Order believes, promulgates, and proscribes.  "But it is written thus: [narration]"

The player with the highest Humanity can [more easily] enter and veto narration about the mind of the Transgressor -- his or her conscience, psychology, or mental state.  "Look!  The heretic considers the error of his ways: [narration]"

Hmmm. I like the first two, but I'm still struggling with Humanity. I want it to really confuse the issue, to make things difficult for the characters. The only real power of Humanity in the end is to influence the end-game result. Martyrs are surprisingly effective in getting people's attention. But the idea of using Humanity for the purpose of the Interrogation is also interesting, as it pollutes the purity of the concept. It makes it less...idealistic. Anything that muddies the water in terms of morality is fine by me. I'd like to play on that, but not to say "The heretic has learned the errors of his ways", but as yet another way of creating guilt and sin in the story of the Transgressor. Thoughts?

With any luck I'll get a new write-up up and running soon, with all of these new ideas in place. In the mean time, I just want to bounce around the Resources idea and any problems you guys have with it. Also, any thoughts and discussion on the three main attributes (Authority, Zeal, Humanity) and how we could delve into these further is fine by me (when I get the next rules write-up I'll start a new thread for that if it seems to warrant investigation).

Thank you all very much, your thoughts and input are greatly appreciated
Kirk

[Bill_White]

I guess I saw Resources as being something seperate from Authority in that they might be contacts of some kind, tools, anything that you happen to have at your disposal, inside the Order and out. Inquisitors (frowned on as it may be) will always have contacts beyond the order, even the most fanatical. Even if the contacts are unsavory, you can always turn them in later... I think that Resources should be available to everybody, while Authority is more about rank, authority, commad and respect within the Order. What do you think?

Right...but if you imagine that players will be able to more-or-less freely introduce details into their narration, even if what they say contradicts what has been said before ("Those people are not there") then all Inquisitors do in fact have access to "Resources":  in fact, almost unlimited resources (i.e., the player's ability to come up with cogent narration).  But the final arbiter of what is in fact the case is what the Inquisitor with the most Authority says--regardless of what "Resources" other Inquisitors bring to bear.  So I would agree with those who argue that a Resource stat muddies the mechanics of the game, especially given how you've said you want truth to work in the game.

...I'm still struggling with Humanity. I want it to really confuse the issue, to make things difficult for the characters. The only real power of Humanity in the end is to influence the end-game result. Martyrs are surprisingly effective in getting people's attention. But the idea of using Humanity for the purpose of the Interrogation is also interesting, as it pollutes the purity of the concept. It makes it less...idealistic. Anything that muddies the water in terms of morality is fine by me. I'd like to play on that, but not to say "The heretic has learned the errors of his ways", but as yet another way of creating guilt and sin in the story of the Transgressor. Thoughts?

I think it's important that a high Humanity trait (a) make an Inquisitor more effective as an interrogator, but at the same time (b) make him more vulnerable to crises of conscience that will result in a fall from grace.  Notice how assigning the narration rules as I've done does (a).  While Authority lets you say what's (factually) true, and Zeal lets you say what the Order thinks about things, all Humanity does is let you say what the Transgressor believes (or seems to believe). 

So maybe it's a matter of figuring out the right phrasing.  "It is known..." points to the real world and "It is written..." points to the texts promulgated by the Order.  The third phrase should point to the visible physical manifestations of the psychological state of the Transgressor.  "[Listen|Look], brothers, he is trying to [do something]; he [acts]..."

But all of this only makes a difference if the Transgressor's beliefs about his or her own guilt affect the Inquisitors.  So you could have rules like this:  "If the Transgressor is pronounced guilty before confessing, then all Inquisitors except the one with the highest Zeal must either give up 1 Humanity or 1 Zeal."  The point of these sorts of rules would be to have the interrogation materially affect each Inquisitor. 

After each interrogation, players would then check to see if their stat changes triggered some kind of end-game or state-change:  Inquisitor becomes Transgressor, Inquisitor becomes Rebel, yadda yadda.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Especially if you're thinking of using Humanity as a source of in-game power -- albeit, of course, to do rather different things from what Zeal etc. can do -- you really must look at Paul Czege's My Life With Master (assuming you haven't already). The "Love" value in that game is a critical to rolls to defy the Master's orders, and is also invested in loved ones who are in constant threat, so the mechanics do a great job of making the player think like the character: the real person playing's "Oh, no, my sources of power is in danger, I've got to protect it!" emotionally amplifies the imaginary character's "Oh, no, my loved ones are in danger, I must protect them!"

[Kirk Mitchell]

I have My Life With Master on my Must Play list (on the top actually, its been there a while...) I just haven't gotten around to buying it. I sort of view my game as "Put Kirk, My Life With Master and Dogs in the Vinyard in a blender". But then again, I view my most recent artwork as "the world's most complex barbie colouring page" (as a reflection and oversimplification of the technique used), so that doesn't really count for much, does it?

The Inquisitors are in a bit of a different boat though. Being completely isolated from the outside world, all they have is their memories which keep them human. So it isn't about whomever else they love, but the things that they treasure most in their memories. Unlike My Life With Master (as I understand it), they are also tempted with other paths: Great power and the draw of their belief.

Anyways, I've written up a new draft. You will notice some holes, and the Truth roll will most likely be explained very badly, so I'll go over those afterwards.

"Sometimes, you have to kill off the sick to save the herd..."

Your Order has existed since the beginning of Time. All creatures, man and beast, are accountable to its Infinite presence. Its Laws are Absolute. Despite this, there are...transgressions. You are all Inquisitors. You are bound by your Order to seek all Transgressors, find them, learn all of the sins that lie within them, and render Judgement upon their bodies and their souls.

The Beginning of the Order

The First Tenets and basic Dogmas
The Absolute Laws of the Order
The Judgments of the Order
The Order and its Practice

Of The Inquisitor

Character concept

Age: Determines rank

Rank: Determined by the age of the character

Authority: How much Authority you wield within the Order, and thus exercise power over others. Starting Authority determined by Rank (the higher the Rank, the higher the Authority).

Zeal: How strongly you adhere to the code of the Order, how willing you are to do things for the Order. Starting Zeal is determined by Age (the younger the Age, the higher the Zeal).

Humanity: Everything that makes you human. The older you are, the more Humanity traits you are able to develop. As you go through the game, you will go through experiences which will allow you to add Humanity traits which will alter how you perform your sworn duty as an Inquisitor. Humanity begins empty for all Inquisitors.

The Interrogation Room

Of the Transgressor and his Identification
Name, Gender, Social Status, and Accusation

The Transgressor is a communal character that each player gets to guide through their retelling of their sins. As a group, the players drive the Transgressor towards conflicts through the Interrogation process. This way, the Inquisitors learn of the Transgressor's crimes and can judge him accordingly.

The Interrogation and other Methods of the Inquisitor
The Interrogation is a system by which the players agree and negotiate the incidents that took place in the Transgressor's time of sin. To do this, the players take on the personas of their Inquisitors and their deliberations over the crimes and actions of the Transgressor. Statements, each representing a different type of narration, are used to come to an agreement on the incident in question. The phrases and how to use them are as follows (note: All narrations but those of certain specified phrases must be addressed as though to the Transgressor).

Confess!: In order of seniority (From the highest Authority to the lowest), each player starts off with Confess! and a narration of an incident which leads to a conflict for the Transgressor. From there, the Interrogation continues to be negotiated until the conflict is resolved, at which point the next player starts off with Confess!

This must also be:  When you wish to agree with a statement made by another player on the condition that this statement is also true. Once agreed upon, a statement is Truth.

Lying Heretic!:  When you wish to signal that a statement is not acceptable, and make another statement as a replacement, which will become Truth

May I respectfully remind my colleague: When you wish to add extra information from beyond the Interrogation Room. A point of either Authority or Zeal must be spent to say this phrase, depending on the kind of information to be introduced. If the extra statement of information relates to the outside world and its laws, or the politicking of the Order then a point of Authority must be spent. If the extra statement of information relates to aspects of the Laws, Judgments and other aspects of Order doctrine, then a point of Zeal must be spent. This phrase is to be addressed as though to another Inquisitor.

You cannot fool me: When you wish to make a statement about the Transgressor's actions or behaviour that cannot be disagreed with (Lying Heretic! and Let it be Judged cannot be used on this statement). You must spend one of your Humanity traits (remove it from your character sheet) to use this.

Let it be Judged: When you cannot agree with the statement and will have it resolved through a Truth roll (see below).

So, the Truth is revealed: When you agree with the previous statement and then wish to close off negotiations, whereupon the next player will begin with Confess! You must spend a point of Authority to do so.

We will return at the Time of Judgment: The final phrase to be used when the Transgressor's story has reached the point of his or her capture. It has no special effect or impact on the game, just signals that the Transgressor's story is now completed and Judgment will follow.

The Truth Roll
Choose a die type to begin the game with. This will be the Base Die Type. It should have more sides than there are players. If you have six or less players, use a 6 sided die. If you have seven players, use an 8 sided die and so on. Assign each player one number from 0 to the highest number on the die type being used. Each player has a number that they "own". The number that you have just assigned is one of those numbers. More numbers "owned" numbers can be assigned later throughout the game. The numbers owned make up the Truth Pool.

When a Truth roll is called for, all of the players state what outcome they want in regards to the statement at hand. Roll the die. The player who owns the number rolled gets to narrate the result to the conflict that they have stated.

The Passing of The Final Judgment
When you have finally reached the point where the Transgressor was captured by the Inquisitors and the phrase We will return at the Time of Judgment is spoken, their story is over. Discuss as a group the sins (which should have been recorded by the Senior Inquisitor) of the Transgressor and decide on the Judgment to be passed, in accordance to the Laws and Judgments of the Order that were created at the beginning of the game. The sins must be read out in the manner of the following example:

Albert Chandler, Bondsman of the Gray Quarter, you are hereby found guilty of -
Perjury
Worship of the Fiend and other foul beings too numerous to mention
Desecration of the Book of Laws
Assault
Murder
Larceny
Arson
Sedition
...
And so on.

The Judgment to be passed is to be read out, beginning with the phrase In its wisdom, the council has sentenced you to... and a description of the Judgment and how the sentencing will be carried out.

The Writing of New Laws and Judgments
When there is no applicable Law or Judgment

Of An Inquisitor's Authority
Gaining Authority

Of The Zeal of Youth
Gaining Zeal

Of The Curse of Humanity and its Evils
Throughout the Interrogation, the Senior Inquisitor has the responsibility and honour of being Interrogation Recorder. One of the items that must be recorded are the conflicts that take place within the Transgressor's story, the contexts (the situations from which the conflicts arose) and the ultimate result of the conflict.

After the final Judgment has been passed and executed, each player must create a Humanity trait for each of the conflicts that occurred in the Transgressor's story. The Humanity traits must in some way relate to the conflict, either directly, or through some similar experience in the Inquisitor's life. It must relate in some way that would allow the Inquisitor to potentially identify with the Transgressor.

When writing Humanity traits, give a title or identifying term (for example: Stole from Butcher as child) and write a short description that gives a brief snap-shot into that moment in time.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on potential ways of gaining Authority and Zeal. Humanity was the easy one, but these two are a bit more difficult. Or perhaps the answer is staring me in the face and I just can't see it. That happens too. I am planning on putting some description of how to create new Laws and Judgments when the ones you have just don't fit. Perhaps this could be done by the use of May I respectfully remind my colleague... Other than that, are there any general thoughts?

You will also notice that I have given on the Resources issue. What you guys are saying makes sense (I guess this is one of those "Thanks guys for pushing me about something that I would have held onto, but only made things worse", because that is the case, is it not?).

I've created a separate thread for discussing the end-games. We'll keep this thread for hammering out the mechanical issues

Thanks,
Kirk

[Kirk Mitchell]

Ok, so I finally have a playtestable version. PM me or e-mail me if you want to playtest it (it is in .pdf format and I don't have any web-hosting options).

Thanks,
Kirk

[Josh Roby]

Kirk, send me a copy (pagan atta ilovejesus dotter net) and I'd be happy to post it up for you?

[knicknevin]

I love the concept of this game and I like the suggestions that have been made to refine it (my pm asking for the .pdf is will be written next!) but one thing I haven't seen mentioned, though I admit i might have missed it, is Franz Kafka; many points of this game seem to parallel his work, particularly The Trial in which a man finds himself accused of a non-specified crime, with no real evidence given other than the accusers' certainty of his guilt... I can reall see this being a tense, paranoid, Kafakesque-set up, with the players originally having the NPC Transgressor to accuse, but constantly trying to avoid having the spotlight of the Inquisition shine on them... Nice one Kirk!